ArticlePopulation health metrics2024
Deriving disability weights for the Netherlands: findings from the Dutch disability weights measurement study.
Article in Population health metrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Estimated disability weights for the severity of health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Population health metrics · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of this study were to establish national disability weights based on the health state preferences of a Dutch general population sample, examine the relation between results and respondent's characteristics, and compare disability weights with those estimated in the European disability weights study.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was administered to a general population 18-75 years from the Netherlands. The survey included paired comparison questions. Paired comparison data were analysed using probit regression and located results onto the 0-to-1 disability weight scale using non-parametric regression. Bootstrapping was used to estimate 95% uncertainty intervals (95%UI). Spearman's correlation was used to investigate the relation of probit regression coefficients between respondent's characteristics.
results3994 respondents completed the questionnaire. The disability weights ranged from 0.007 (95%UI: 0.003-0.012) for mild distance vision impairment to 0.741 (95% UI: 0.498-0.924) for intensive care unit admission. Spearman's correlation of probit coefficients between sub-groups based on respondent's characteristics were all above 0.95 (p < 0.001). Comparison of disability weights of 140 health states that were included in the Dutch and European disability weights study showed a high correlation (Spearman's correlation: 0.942; p < 0.001); however, for 76 (54.3%) health states the point estimate of the Dutch disability weight fell outside of the 95%UI of the European disability weights.
conclusionsRespondent's characteristics had no influence on health state valuations with the paired comparison. However, comparison of the Dutch disability weights to the European disability weights indicates that health state preferences of the general population of the Netherlands differ from those of other European countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.